Before the Ohio Election Fraud, this blog was entitled "Fairness". Since November 2, 2004, a day that will live in infamy, this blog has been devoted exclusively to fighting the crimes committed against the citizens of Ohio, and against our American way of life, in the 2004 "election".

November 25, 2004

Columbus Cleveland data

I, RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS, do swear and affirm the following:

I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and a registered voter.

I hold a Ph.D. in geomorphology from the University of Oregon.

I am a professional hydrologist and am well versed in standard techniques of statistical analysis, with special expertise in spotting anomalous data.

I have analyzed unofficial results from the 2004general election in Columbus and Cleveland.

There is compelling evidence of systematic withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in Columbus, many of them with high black populations. This action severely restricted voter turnout in these wards, and cost John F. Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes. Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder is known to have made this decision, and he is known to have met with Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.

In Gahanna, Franklin County, Ward 1, Precinct B, where 638 ballots were cast, George W. Bush was awarded 4,258 votes. John F. Kerry received 260 votes. There were 87 reported write-in votes, compared to zero in the rest of the ward, 13 in the rest of Gahanna. Such discrepancies can only be found through time-consuming precinct by precinct analysis.

There is compelling evidence of incorrect presidential vote tallies in numerous precincts in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County. These irregularities include wholesale shifting of votes from one candidateâs column to another, and serious underreporting of the vote totals. These actions cost John F. Kerry at least 6,000 votes, by conservative estimate.

There are demonstrable discrepancies in the reported numbers of total ballots cast in Cuyahoga County. These discrepancies include cities and towns with more ballots cast than the number of registered voters; and cities and towns in which the reported voter turnout, though less than the number of registered voters, is greater than the sum total of ballots cast in all of its wards. These discrepancies amount to 246,919 votes, and call into question all the results in Cuyahoga County. The numbers are compromised and not to be trusted.

Supporting documentation is being provided to the court.

As of this writing there are still 248,100 uncounted ballots in Ohio, including 155,428 provisional ballots, and 92,672 ballots cast but still uncounted. George W. Bush holds a lead of only 136,483 votes in the unofficial count, not taking into consideration any of the above listed activities and discrepancies or any others that may yet be found. Furthermore, a statewide recount is still pending.

I pray for relief from this court, asking specifically that

-- All ballots cast, and all records of ballots cast, be preserved as evidence.

-- Plaintiff be allowed to file amended complaints as further evidence becomes apparent.

TO THIS I SWEAR AND AFFIRM,

Richard Hayes Phillips STEALING VOTES IN COLUMBUS

The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch. The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.

Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County Republican Party. Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.

The idea was to discourage turnout in Democratic wards by forcing voters to wait in long lines at the polling places. Such a strategy would be far more effective than encouraging turnout in Republican wards. Elections are all about margins. There are 74 wards in Columbus. George W. Bush won 12 wards, with a margin of 7.35%. John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%. Affecting Kerryâs turnout would greatly reduce his margin of victory in Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better chance of overtaking Kerry given a strong enough showing in suburban and small town Republican strongholds.

In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the Franklin County Board of Elections all the data I needed in order to calculate, ward by ward, and precinct by precinct: (1) The ratio of registered voters per voting machine. (2) Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast divided by the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry, calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for president. (4) Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry, calculated as the difference between the vote totals for Kerry and Bush.

The first thing I noticed was the distribution of turnout. There is a statistically significant difference between the turnout in the Bush precincts and the turnout in the Kerry precincts.

As the above table shows, turnout was over 60% in 68 of 125 Bush precincts (54.4%), and over 50% in 117 of 125 Bush precincts (93.6%). By contrast, turnout was over 60% in only 57 of 346 Kerry precincts (16.5%), over 50% in only 185 of 346 Kerry precincts (53.5%), and under 40% in 34 of 346 Kerry precincts (9.8%).

Was the uneven distribution of turnout due to a lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate? Or was it due to an uneven distribution of voting machines? To answer this question, I arranged the data, ward by ward, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine.

As the above table shows, the 38 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the lowest enjoyed high voter turnout. All but 3 of the 38 wards at the top of Damschroderâs list had a turnout above 50%, and 6 of the 38 wards at the top of the list had a turnout above 60%. All 12 of the Bush wards are included in the top of the list. The 26 Kerry wards in the top of the list are not his biggest strongholds. In only 13 of the 26 wards did Kerry exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 13 of 38 wards altogether. However, these Kerry wards did enjoy a high voter turnout. In 23 of the 26 wards, Kerryâs turnout exceeded that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout exceeded 55% in 14 Kerry wards, and exceeded 60% in 3 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry enjoyed a higher turnout where the polling places had enough voting machines. What about the bottom of the list?

As the above table shows, the 36 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the highest suffered low voter turnout. All but 8 of the 36 wards at the bottom of Damschroderâs list had a turnout below 50%, and 2 of the 36 wards at the bottom of the list had a turnout below 40%. All 36 of the wards at the bottom of the list were won by Kerry, and they include most of his strongholds. In 29 of the 36 wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout. In only 7 of the 36 wards did Kerryâs turnout exceed that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout was below 45% in 14 of the 36 wards, and was below 40% in 2 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry suffered a lower turnout where the polling places did not have enough voting machines.

A similar pattern is evident when examining the data for individual precincts. I have arranged the data in the same manner as above, precinct by precinct, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine. The 61 precincts with the lowest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:

As the table above shows, of the 61 precincts with the most voting machines per registered voter, 26 were won by Bush, 34 were won by Kerry, and one was a tie. Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts and 26 of them (20.80%) are represented here. Kerry won 346 precincts, only 34(0.98%) are represented here, and they are not his major strongholds. In only 12 of the 34 Kerry precincts did he exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 12 of 61 precincts altogether. Most of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout. In all 61 precincts, turnout was above 50%. In 42 of the 61 precincts, turnout was above that of Bushâs median precinct, 60.56%. Of these 42 precincts, 22 were won by Bush, and 20 were won by Kerry. This proves once and for all that the Kerry precincts could have enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts, if only they had been supplied with enough voting machines.

And what of the precincts with not enough voting machines? The 60 precincts with the highest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:

As the table above shows, of the 60 precincts with the fewest voting machines per registered voter, only 5 were won by Bush, and 55 were won by Kerry. Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts, and only 5 of them (4.00%) are represented here. Kerry won 346 precincts, 55 (15.9%) are represented here, and they include his major strongholds. In 41 of the 55 Kerry precincts, he exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. None of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout. In only 7 of the precincts was turnout was above 50%. Of these, 4 were won by Kerry, and 3 were won by Bush. Turnout was below 45% in 34 precincts, below 40% in 16 precincts, below 35% in 5 precincts, and below 30% in one precinct.

It is important to understand what these numbers mean. The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes. If there are 400 registered voters per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has less than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream of voters, with no rushes at certain hours. It also assumes no challenges to voters at the polls. If there are 550 registered voters per voting machine, and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes.

All of this amounts to theft of votes. It has been shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with enough voting machines.

It is an easy matter to calculate, assuming the same vote percentages for each ward, how many more votes John Kerry would have gotten with a 60% voter turnout. This is not an unreasonable number. The median Bush precinct enjoyed a turnout of 60.56%. The turnout was 66.31% for Cincinnati, city wide.

I am aware that because the Franklin County Board of Elections did not purge its voter rolls, there are more registered voters than adults listed as living in Franklin County by the United States Census. There are many âregisteredâ voters who are dead or have moved away. One might expect, therefore, a lower percentage of voter turnout in Cleveland than in Cincinnati. However, 60% of the voting age population is a reasonable figure. Presidential elections have surpassed this figure four times in my lifetime: 1952 (61.6%), 1960 (62.8%), 1964 (61.9%), and 1968 (60.9%). In 1992 the figure was 55.9%, and the 2004 election was probably more hotly contested.

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the magnitude of the conspiracy.

Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are 74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not possible for one person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be investigated for possible complicity.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

This blog is devoted to evidence, investigation, litigation, and prosecution regarding the Ohio election of 2004, especially on issues of fraud, disenfranchisement, voter suppression, vote machine tampering, and recount obstruction.

We welcome submissions of information relating to : (a) evidence, (b) legal documents,
(c) news of legal events, (d) announcements of upcoming legal and informational events, and (e) scholarly analysis and commentary upon evidence relating to the Ohio election of 2004. These should be
emailed to me.
Thanks.
Ray